The Blood Money Scandal: SANBS Profits While Donors Bleed Dry
The lifeblood of South Africa flows through its people. Yet, the system that collects, processes, and distributes this precious resource is steeped in injustice. The South African National Blood Service (SANBS) is a private non-profit organisation. It operates a monopoly over the nation’s blood supply. It reaps billions in revenue while donors, ordinary citizens who give selflessly, are left empty-handed. This story is about more than just bureaucratic oversight. It’s a tale of exploitation, greed, and a system that prioritises profit over fairness. The blood money scandal at the heart of SANBS demands urgent reform, and the time for change is now.
A Billion-Rand Empire Built on Free Blood
In the last audited financial year of 2024, SANBS generated a staggering R4 billion in revenue. A surplus of R274 million was recorded. This was down from R394 million the prior year. Yet, it remained a significant profit for an organisation that claims to operate in the public’s interest. This revenue does not come from selling widgets or luxury goods.
It comes from the blood donated freely by South Africans who believe they’re saving lives. Instead of rewarding these donors, SANBS imposes exorbitant fees on hospitals. They charge over R2,000 per pint for government facilities and more than R3,000 per pint for private healthcare providers. For patients, the cost is even higher. Blood transfusions in private hospitals range from R4,000 to a jaw-dropping R30,000 per unit.
The blood money scandal begins with this stark reality. SANBS profits handsomely. Donors receive nothing but token gifts. These include keychains, pens, or T-shirts sourced from paid suppliers. Meanwhile, the organisation’s executive team enjoys salaries ranging from R2.1 million to R5.8 million annually. Nurses, doctors, and testers are paid for their roles in the value chain.
The blood money scandal is not just a financial issue; it’s a moral failing.
Transport companies and storage facilities also receive compensation. Moreover, accountants and marketing agencies are compensated for their contributions. Yet, the donors the very foundation of this enterprise are left out in the cold. This is not just unfair; it’s morally indefensible.
The Myth of “Processing Fees”
SANBS insists it doesn’t “sell” blood but merely recoups “processing fees” to cover operational costs. Nonetheless, this explanation rings hollow when you consider the scale of their revenue and surplus. The organisation owns vehicles, properties, and other income-generating assets, all funded by the blood donated for free. These assets don’t just sustain operations; they fuel a financial empire that thrives on the goodwill of South Africans. The blood money scandal lies in this disconnect. SANBS claims to be a non-profit. Yet, its financial structure resembles that of a corporate juggernaut.
Consider the math. A single pint of blood, donated without compensation, is processed and distributed for thousands of rands. Government hospitals, funded by taxpayer money, pay SANBS over R2,000 per pint. Private hospitals, in turn, charge patients up to R30,000 for a transfusion. Yet, when a donor needs blood in a hospital, they must pay the same exorbitant rates as everyone else. The system offers no reciprocity, no gratitude, and no fairness. Donors are expected to give their blood. They also give their time and effort. They often incur costs for transport or meals without any tangible reward.
A Global Comparison: Paying for Life
Other countries have recognised the value of compensating donors. In the United States, blood donors can get payments ranging from $20 to $50. This depends on the centre and the demand at the time. The United Kingdom also offers incentives, acknowledging the time, effort, and personal costs involved in donating. Even in South Africa, sperm and egg donors receive compensation for their contributions. This compensation recognises the physical and emotional toll of the process. Why, then, does SANBS cling to an outdated model that treats blood donors as unpaid volunteers?
The argument against paying donors often hinges on ethics. SANBS claims that compensation will incentivise “dodgy” donations from individuals seeking quick cash. Nonetheless, this concern is easily addressed. Rigorous testing already ensures that contaminated or unsafe blood is flagged and discarded. Donors with “dodgy blood” will be blacklisted and excluded from future donations, as is standard practice in other countries. Offering a modest payment of R50 to R100 per approved donation would reward donors. It would also incentivise healthy and responsible giving. The blood money scandal thrives because SANBS hides behind this flimsy excuse, refusing to innovate or adapt.
The Human Cost of Exploitation
Beyond the numbers, the blood money scandal has a human face. Donors like Sipho Ngcobo, a 34-year-old teacher from Soweto, give blood regularly, believing they’re contributing to a noble cause. “I spend money on transport to get to the donation centre,” Sipho says, his voice tinged with frustration. “I take time off work, I eat something beforehand to stay strong, and what do I get? A cheap T-shirt and a thank-you note. Meanwhile, SANBS is making billions, and I can’t even afford my own medical bills if I need blood one day.”
Sipho’s story is not unique. Across South Africa, donors make sacrifices to give blood, often facing financial and logistical burdens. For many, the act of donating is a deeply personal commitment to saving lives. Yet, the system exploits this altruism, offering no tangible support in return. The blood money scandal is not just about money. It’s about respect, or the lack of that, for the people who keep SANBS running.
A Monopoly That Must End Blood Money Scandal
The most egregious aspect of the blood money scandal is SANBS’s monopoly over South Africa’s blood supply. As a private non-profit, SANBS operates without competition, giving it unchecked power to set prices and dictate terms. This monopoly allows the organisation to charge exorbitant fees to hospitals while paying nothing to donors. The Department of Health should be the steward of the nation’s healthcare resources. Instead, it has outsourced this critical role to a private entity. This decision leaves taxpayers and donors to bear the cost.
The solution is clear: the Department of Health must take ownership of blood collection, testing, storage, and distribution. A state-run system would prioritise affordability and fairness, ensuring that blood is treated as a public good, not a commodity. By eliminating the middleman, the government reduce costs for hospitals and patients, making blood transfusions more accessible. Moreover, a state-run system implement a fair compensation model for donors, rewarding their contributions without compromising safety.
The Legal Barrier: A Bogus Act
SANBS’s refusal to pay donors is often justified by legal restrictions. The justification is specifically linked to the Human Tissue Act, which prohibits the sale of human tissue, including blood. This law is outdated and misapplied. Sperm and egg donors in South Africa get compensation for their efforts. They face similar legal constraints. Their contributions are recognised as requiring time, effort, and personal cost. Blood donation is no different. Donors must travel to centres, undergo medical screening, and sometimes take time off work, all without reimbursement. The blood money scandal is perpetuated by a law that fails to account for the realities of modern healthcare.
I spend money on transport to get to the donation centre… and what do I get? A cheap T-shirt and a thank-you note.
Amending the Human Tissue Act to allow modest payments for blood donors would be a straightforward fix. A compensation model of R50 to R100 per approved donation would not incentivise unsafe donations. Testing protocols would continue to guarantee quality. Donors with contaminated blood be flagged and blacklisted, as is done elsewhere. The argument that paying donors would compromise safety is a red herring, used to protect SANBS’s profitable status quo.
The Moral Imperative for Change
The blood money scandal is not just a financial issue; it’s a moral failing. SANBS’s leadership enjoys multimillion-rand salaries while donors struggle to cover the costs of their generosity. The organisation’s surplus funds easily be redirected to compensate donors. Instead, SANBS chooses to invest in assets and marketing campaigns. This is not the behaviour of a non-profit dedicated to the public good. It’s the behaviour of a business prioritising its own interests.
South Africans deserve better. Donors deserve respect, recognition, and fair compensation for their contributions. Patients deserve affordable access to blood without being gouged by a system that profits from their suffering. The Department of Health must take action. It needs to dismantle SANBS’s monopoly. It should set up a transparent and fair system for blood collection and distribution. The blood money scandal must end, and it must end now.
A Call to Action – Blood Money Scandal
The blood money scandal at SANBS is a stain on South Africa’s healthcare system. For too long, donors have been taken for granted, their generosity exploited by an organisation that prioritises profit over fairness. The time for reform is overdue. We call on the Department of Health to take immediate action. They must amend the Human Tissue Act. They need to compensate donors fairly. Additionally, they should bring blood services under public control. We urge South Africans to hold SANBS accountable. Stand up for a system that values their contributions.
The blood that flows through our veins is a gift, but it should not be a gift given in vain. Let us end the blood money scandal and build a blood service that serves the people, not the profiteers. Together, we can make sure that every drop of blood donated is met with gratitude, respect, and fairness.
